1081 réponses à ce sujet

[The Angry One]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Fact. 

<snip>

I hate to break it to you, but facts you don't like are still facts.

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

Fact. None of the games ever showed such a problem exists, not to the extent the Catalyst claims.
Multiple events contradict it.

The period of a few years shown in the games does not speak for the past however many billion years the Catalyst has been around. Your simple logic does not make your argument fact.

The Angry One wrote...

a)  It's bad because it's forced.

That's a debate of morals. And Shepard does not speak for the trillions of organics he's deciding the fate of; whether he physically alters them (Synthesis) or condems them to death (Refusal). You're going to have to make a choice either way, and if this argument invalidates Synthesis, it invalidates Destroy and Refuse, too.

Using this logic, the only ending that's "good" is Control, as it's the only ending that has no direct effect on anyone.

The Angry One wrote...
It's bad because it's unecesarry.

Opinion.

The Angry One wrote...
It's bad because the Reapers have always promoted their form as superior, and that they know best. Synthesis reinforces this.

The Reapers' attitude has no relation to their goal.

They could be the most diplomatic and pacifist force in the galaxy and believe in a harsh dictatorship. Does their peaceful attitude make their goal noble? No. And the Reapers' arrogance does not make their goal evil.

The Angry One wrote...
 Again, this is what the PEOPLE DESIGNING THE CRUCIBLE would think.

Speculation.

---------------------------------------------

The flaw in your argument is that you're speculating, coming to overly-simplified conclusions based on said speculation, headcanoning said speculation, then refusing to acknowledge it as speculation. None of what you're claiming has irrefutable proof backing it, or, in a lot of cases, any real evidence at all.

Modifié par JackumsD, 06 juillet 2012 - 09:15 .

[Welsh Inferno]

The Angry One wrote...

I hate to break it to you, but facts you don't like are still facts.

I think you need to tell that to yourself dear.

[darkpassenger2342]

The Angry One wrote...

darkpassenger2342 wrote...

javiks people wanted synthesis too, but they tried to do it with an iron fist. Inevitably, they enslaved every other race so they were unworthy, thus destroyed.. humans were NOT, the starchild told us this.
the protheans dont deserve synthesis.
 they were not ready.

Lol, and what do you think synthesis is if not something imposed with an iron fist, no choice, no consent.

Also, remember how Javik argued that homogenity was a failure of the empire? Even if it was analagous to synthesis you just proved why Javik wouldn't want it.

Also... seriously? They were not ready? SERIOUSLY? There's no point in talking about this with you.

 yes, they werent ready, they already had control of the entire galaxy and would have continued to enslave everyone else for their entire existence. INCLUDING the humans, who admittedly were left alone. WHy wasnt a prothean brought to the crucible? why did they have to wait another cycle for shepard????
 why were humans left alone and not the protheans then?? you can contradict everything everyone else says, but you fail to explain many things.
 and why does it matter if javik admitted it 50,000 years later after war was lost and hes the only prothean left???
 thats nothing more than reflecting....
 the protheans didnt deserve synthesis.

Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 06 juillet 2012 - 09:20 .

[Baronesa]

darkpassenger2342 wrote...
 yes, they werent ready, they already had control of the entire galaxy and would have continued to enslave everyone else for their entire existence. INCLUDING the humans, who admittedly were left alone.
 why were humans left alone and not the protheans then?? you can contradict everything everyone else says, but you fail to explain many things.
 and why does it matter if javik admitted it 50,000 years later after war was lost and hes the only prothean left???
 self-reflection is about all that shows...
 it was far too late for the protheans.

oook are you trolling here?

Did you played the first game?

It is explained THERE why they didn't target the humans, Asari, Volus, Turians, Elcor, Salarians etc during the last circle...

I mean... really?

[Ketten]

I still honestly don't understand what Synthesis does.

Alright it changes your DNA. If you're a robot, okay, that changes the way you think/understand organics. (Lol idk.) What does that entail? Does that mean that suddenly Turians and Quarians can consume non-dextro food and not choke to death? Does that mean that everyone can have babies with each other since they're all technically biologically/synthetically compatible?

Obviously, you're not going to be able to physically relate to a robot that has no organic parts. You're still two different entities. Synthesis just seems to me like a massive brainwash to force people to think that they're getting along. Kind of like how it has slideshows showing people completely at ease with the fact that robot zombies who were most likely their dead relatives hanging about, and oh, yeah, the giant metal cuttlefish that was, several moments ago, committing mass genocide for an illogical reasoning.

I just don't understand.

Modifié par Ketten, 06 juillet 2012 - 09:21 .

[The Angry One]

JackumsD wrote...


The period of a few years shown in the games does not speak for the past however many billion years the Catalyst has been around. Your simple logic does not make your argument fact.

Your appeal to probably doesn't change a thing. Every example we're given shows that everything the Catalyst says is nonsense.
In the EC, it confirms that itself. Organic life was NEVER in danger of extinction, it just decided it would be eventually.

TThat's a debate of morals. And Shepard does not speak for the trillions of organics he's deciding the fate of; whether he physically alters them (Synthesis) or condems them to death (Refusal). You're going to have to make a choice either way, and if this argument invalidates Synthesis, it invalidates Destroy and Refuse, too.

Using this logic, the only ending that's "good" is Control, as it's the only ending that has no direct effect on anyone.

Once again, destroy and reject reflect previously established agreements to fight and resist the Reapers.
Chaning all life, altering everyone's bodies is a total violation that goes well beyond deciding fate, even if destroy and reject were as you think they are.

Opinion.

Show evidence that anything the Catalyst says is valid to the point it requires any of it's solutions then.

The Reapers' attitude has no relation to their goal.

They could be the most diplomatic and pacifist force in the galaxy and believe in a harsh dictatorship. Does their peaceful attitude make their goal noble? No. And the Reapers' arrogance does not make their goal evil.

Except that goal is borne from their arrogance. They think their form is superior, the pinnacle of evolution, therefore making all life into something that resembles their own will solve all problems.

Speculation.

Giant metal cuttlefish is trying to kill you and everything you care about.

Do you:

a) Try to find a way to fight it.
 Do exactly what it wants.

The flaw in your argument is that you're speculating, coming to overly-simplified conclusions based on said speculation, headcanoning said speculation, then refusing to acknowledge it as speculation. None of what you're claiming has irrefutable proof backing it, or, in a lot of cases, any real evidence at all.

I have shown my evidence, meanwhile you declare that everything I say is speculation while backing up nothing you say. Who's headcanoning again?

[Xellith]

darkpassenger2342 wrote...

 yes, they werent ready, they already had control of the entire galaxy and would have continued to enslave everyone else for their entire existence. INCLUDING the humans, who admittedly were left alone. WHy wasnt a prothean brought to the crucible? why did they have to wait another cycle for shepard????
 why were humans left alone and not the protheans then?? you can contradict everything everyone else says, but you fail to explain many things.
 and why does it matter if javik admitted it 50,000 years later after war was lost and hes the only prothean left???
 thats nothing more than reflecting....
 the protheans didnt deserve synthesis.

1.  Humans wernt left alone though...
"Examining the strange Prothean artifact reveals a small, irregular slot on the underside of the surface. Remembering the strange trinket you received from the asari Consort on the Citadel, you pull it out and place it in the slot. The ball explodes in a brilliant flash of white light, momentarily blinding you and disorienting you.
Prothean?
Slowly your senses return as you wake from a deep sleep. You are alone in the forest, though you are not far from the caves you share with the others in your tribe. There is a pain and a small lump in the back of your skull, as if a chip of flint has been forced under the surface of the skin.  Leaning on your bone-tipped spear for support, you rise to your
feet. A sound draws your attention upwards, where a strange creature hovers high above you. It is unlike the birds you hunt by the lake's edge – it has no head and no wings yet somehow it flies. It is a beast of shining silver; hanging motionless in the sky like a cloud. You sense it is watching you, studying you.  Raising a hairy fist, you shake your spear at it in anger and the creature rises up quickly until it disappears from view. With a satisfied grunt you make your way back to your caves and the rest of the tribe.

You fall into the familiar patterns of life – the hunt for food, the struggle to claim and keep a mate, the battles against the other tribes that would claim your territory. Days roll into nights and back into days. Each time you rise from sleep there is the sensation that you are not alone; that some "other" is with you sharing all you see, hear and feel. At these times your hand goes to the strange lump at the back of your skull and you remember the silver creature from the sky.

Reaper
The air grows colder, winter falls. You must range farther for food, clutching the furs tight against you to ward off the chill. It is on one of these long hunts that the strange bird returns. You hear it before you see it, its call a deafening roar as it descends from above, swooping down on you. A single great eye opens on the underbelly, a glowing red orb. You try to run, but a finger of red light extends from the eye and engulfs you, and all goes black again.

You wake an instant later to find yourself on Eletania lying on your back, the Prothean artifact looming above you undamaged and your companions standing over you. They help you to your feet, puzzled. "There was a flash of light and you just sort of toppled over," one explains. "Are you okay, Shepard?" the other asks. You don't answer right away, wondering at the implications of what you have seen: the memories of a Cro-Magnon hunter, captured by an implanted Prothean data recorder. How long did they study the primitive humans, observing them and analyzing the results at their base on Mars? And what, if anything, did they learn from us?

"I'm fine," you finally reply, realizing that this is a mystery you will probably never solve. "Forget about it."

2,  Protheans never managed to build the crucible before they were destroyed.  Remember they needed the Citadel. The Citadel was lost in the first attack and the Relays Closed.

3.  They had to wait for the next cycle for shepard because we still had the citadel.  We were in the best position for millions of years to combat the reapers.  Refusal option proves that they didnt have to "wait for shepard" whatsoever.

Modifié par Xellith, 06 juillet 2012 - 09:46 .

[Rhayak]

The Angry One wrote...

The synthesis ending shows that all life is remade to suit the Reaper ideal. We change to suit them.
Again, them helping rebuild proves nothing. The Reapers built the Citadel in the first place, they are clearly not above constructing infrastructure for those they consider beneath them.

Synthesis in one way out of the harvest, like Control or Destruction (control = uncertainty. Destruction = temporary respite). Yes, we change to suit them, but they also change to suit us, as they too get the upgrade and start sharing everything they are and know. 

They built the citadel and the relays to facilitate the harvest, yes. But they never actively helped us develop before. Now they do.

Accepting green glow gives us utopia. Pretty terrific deal, unless you're the "rebel no matter what" type. O_O

[Jackums]

The Angry One wrote...

Your appeal to probably doesn't change a thing. Every example we're given shows that everything the Catalyst says is nonsense.

Unless we're shown the last however many billion years since the Catalyst was created, we cannot make this conclusion. The period of the Mass Effect games and the information given is an extremely miniscule sample size of the vast amount of time this problem could have been around. Your argument is the equivalent of saying "the geth and quarians made peace; organics and synthetics will never fight". It's one tiny occurrence in a massive period of time.

The Angry One wrote...
In the EC, it confirms that itself. Organic life was NEVER in danger of extinction, it just decided it would be eventually.

It says no such thing. It states "but our efforts always ended in conflict".

The Angry One wrote...

Once again, destroy and reject reflect previously established agreements to fight and resist the Reapers.

No, they don't. Nowhere did the geth agree to be a sacrificed for the well-being or organics. Legion's own actions against Shepard if he sides with the quarians on Rannoch contradicts this very notion. The geth put themselves before others, and the ending is no different -- there was never any agreement for their destruction to be a consented option.

And just the same applies to Refuse; nowhere did galactic civilisation agree to be wiped out and harvested by the Reapers for the sake of Shepard's morals. They agreed to do whatever it took to stop the Reapers. Refuse is literally inaction, and therefore not what they agreed to in any sense of the word, as you like to claim,

The Angry One wrote...

Chaning all life, altering everyone's bodies is a total violation that goes well beyond deciding fate, even if destroy and reject were as you think they are.

It's not for you to decide what others would want. You're headcanoning that galactic civilisation would rather be harvested and turned to purée than take Synthesis. That's speculation.

The Angry One wrote...

Show evidence that anything the Catalyst says is valid to the point it requires any of it's solutions then.

You're the one claiming the falsity of its word, therefore you need to supply proof.

I'm not claiming it's right or wrong; simply that we cannot know. 

The Angry One wrote...

Except that goal is borne from their arrogance. They think their form is superior, the pinnacle of evolution, therefore making all life into something that resembles their own will solve all problems.

This was stated nowhere. The Catalyst makes it clear that it prefers Synthesis because it solves the synthetic vs organic problem (whether existent or not), not because it believes it's superior.

The Angry One wrote...

Giant metal cuttlefish is trying to kill you and everything you care about.

Do you:

a) Try to find a way to fight it.
 Do exactly what it wants.

You're claiming "evil" by relation. Its methods =/= its goals. Its intentions may very well be noble. Its methods are an entirely separate matter. If these new solutions the Crucible allowed the Catalyst to offer are beneficial, the fact that it wants them is totally irrelevant -- Hitler liked toast, therefore toast is evil; "logic".

The Angry One wrote...

I have shown my evidence, meanwhile you declare that everything I say is speculation while backing up nothing you say. Who's headcanoning again?

You've not supplied a shred of canon material that proves what you're claiming. You're coming to your own conclusions based on your own interpretations and labeling them as fact.

Modifié par JackumsD, 06 juillet 2012 - 10:00 .

[The Angry One]

A forced utopia is no such thing.
Synthesis is a way out of the harvest in as much as unconditional surrender is a way out of a war.

[The Angry One]

JackumsD wrote...

Unless we're shown the last however many billion years since the Catalyst was created, we cannot make this conclusion. The period of the Mass Effect games and the information given is an extremely miniscule sample size of the vast amount of time this problem could have been around. Your argument is the equivalent of saying "the geth and quarians made peace; organics and synthetics will never fight".

I can make this conclusion, because it's what we're shown in the narrative. It's what we're told by the Catalyst itself, the one making these claims!

Extraordinairy claims require extraordinairy evidence. Or, you know, any evidence. Not appeals to authority and probability.

It says no such thing. It states "but our efforts always ended in conflict".

Conflict =! extinction of all organic life.

And considering what little effort the Catalyst expends in resolve it's differences with Shepard if Shepard starts to resist cooperating with it even though it's already said it's current solution is unviable it doesn't exactly demonstrate that it's a very good negociator does it?

No, they don't. Nowhere did the geth agree to be a sacrificed for the well-being or organics. Legions actions against Shepard if he sides with the quarians on Rannoch contradicts this very notion. The geth put themselves before others, and there was never any agreement for their destruction to be a consented option.

No, they didn't. And that's why I dislike destroy. But it still reflects the overall agreement to stop the Reapers.

And just the same as Refuse, nowhere did galactic civilisation agree to be wiped out and harvested by the Reapers for the sake of Shepard's morals. They agreed to do whatever it took to stop the Reapers. Refuse is literally inaction, and not something everyone agreed to as you like to claim.

Refuse is not inaction, refuse is deciding to fight the Reapers on our terms, not bowing to their demands. That is what everyone agreed to.
Moreover, all 4 choices are the Catalyst presenting an ultimatum. What stops the Catalyst from finding somone else to negociate with? Wasn't it built for diplomacy? Once again you're projecting the Catalyst's actions onto Shepard.

No they

It's not for you to decide what others would want. You're headcanoning that galactic civilisation would rather be harvested and turned to purée than take Synthesis. That's speculation.

You're right, it's not. So why are you?

You're the one claiming the falsity of its word, therefore you need to supply proof.

I'm not claiming it's right or wrong; simply that we cannot know.

I have. So supply proof of the other side of the argument that shows we "cannot know".

This was stated nowhere. The Catalyst makes it clear that it prefers Synthesis because it solves the synthetic vs organic problem (whether existant or not), not because it believe it's superior.

"Synthesis is the final evolution of all life."

You're claiming "evil" by relation. Its methods =/= its goals. Its intentions may very well be noble. Its methods are an entirely separate matter. If these new solutions the Crucible allowed it to offer are beneficial, the fact that it wants them is totally irrelevant -- Hitler liked toast, therefore toast is evil; "logic".

Synthesis represents the core of Reaper philosophy and their reason for being.
It is not simply what they "like". It's what they are, and what they want everyone else to be.

You've not supplied a shred of canon material that proves what you're claiming. You're coming to your own conclusions based on your own interpretations and labeling them as fact.

I have, repeatedly. You're simply claiming I'm not over and over and over while not countering anything yourself.

[Rhayak]

The Angry One wrote...

A forced utopia is no such thing.
Synthesis is a way out of the harvest in as much as unconditional surrender is a way out of a war.

How is that unconditional? We face a little change in DNA (that does not turn us into mindless monsters or such) and in exchange our former enemy gives us unlimited technology and helps us rebuild everything for free. We are initially mad at him but as Leonardo Dicaprio said, we all want catharsis eventually.

It is only forced in that people didn't get to vote about it. Little unfair, perhaps.

But look, i'll make an example: if tomorrow some weird scientist set off a bomb that did nothing except making everyone in the world immune to cancer, would you condemn him for not asking your consent and attempt to give yourself cancer anyway?

(i apologize in advance if you or anyone you know actually has cancer)

Modifié par Rhayak, 06 juillet 2012 - 10:02 .

[The Angry One]

Rhayak wrote...

How is that unconditional? We face a little change in DNA (that does not turn us into mindless monsters or such) and in exchange our former enemy gives us unlimited technology and helps us rebuild everything for free. We are initially mad at him but as Leonardo Dicaprio said, we all want catharsis eventually.

Define "little". People freak out if you so much as tattoo them without their consent. Who is Shepard to impose this change on the entire galaxy?

It is only forced in that people didn't get to vote about it. Little unfair, perhaps.

But look, i'll make an example: if tomorrow some weird scientist set off a bomb that did nothing except making everyone in the world immune to cancer, would you condemn him for not asking your consent and attempt to give yourself cancer anyway?

Nice try. This is an effect that fundamentally changes all life and the way they life that life, permanently.
And you're damn right people would be angry even with your example, because someone out of the blue decides they're going to do this on everybody, regardless of any side effects or consequences.
Nobody has that right.

[Jadebaby]

The Angry One wrote...

This is 100% fact, shown within the game when the head Reaper itself not only promotes synthesis as the best thing ever, but admits that it tried it before.

No this isn't about the morality or lack thereof of synthesis, there are enough topics about that.
Here I ask.... if we are to believe that the Crucible was designed by some unknown organic race and improved upon in the following eons... why does it have an option for synthesis?

Not only is it what the Reapers want. But think about this. Really think about this. The people who designed/added to the Crucible wouldn't be thinking "We need to merge with synthetics for greater understanding/final evolution of life/blah blah blah!". They'd be thinking "Oh my god those giant metal cuttlefish are going to kill us, we need to build something to stop them."
I really have to wonder what kind of mentality would see giant metal killbots and think "You know what would be a good idea? Merging our bodies with them!".

Great thread! I guess the only answer is indoctrinated agents from other cycles corrupted the crucible's design.

[The Angry One]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Great thread! I guess the only answer is indoctrinated agents from other cycles corrupted the crucible's design.

Though that makes me wonder why'd they'd carry those plans forward to the next cycle, but that is a likely explanation if we drop the idea that it was the Reaper's creators.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I kind of pick destroy every time *with the exception of the "wanted to see what the endings looked like" events.

It feels good knowing there won't be any giant robot death squids anywhere.

Because after all the horrific things they've done they don't get to walk *fly whatever* away from this.

[Gorkan86]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

I kind of pick destroy every time *with the exception of the "wanted to see what the endings looked like" events.

It feels good knowing there won't be any giant robot death squids anywhere.

Because after all the horrific things they've done they don't get to walk *fly whatever* away from this.

Yes, it's balm for the soul

[Rhayak]

Define "little". People freak out if you so much as tattoo them without their consent. Who is Shepard to impose this change on the entire galaxy?

He is Shepard. A messianic figure. That's how i PERSONALLY like to see the Mass Effect story anyway. Might seem inappropriate but then who was Jesus to give humanity salvation by dying on the cross? (and mind you, i'm not some Christian fundamentalist).

I say "little" because that's what i see in the ending. We have no idea how the green code actually feels or if it grants immunities, super strenght, longer life, greater sexual power or such.
But all the people in the ending just seem intent on going about their business (jack with her students, Krogan rebuilding, Samara watching her daughter pick flowers etc).

Nice try. This is an effect that fundamentally changes all life and the way they life that life, permanently.
And you're damn right people would be angry even with your example, because someone out of the blue decides they're going to do this on everybody, regardless of any side effects or consequences.
Nobody has that right.

It's the same type of change, in essence. A modification of DNA that makes us different, yet the same.
We'll hate the guy for years, and then, after years without one of humanity's worst ailments, we'll say "thank you crazy scientist."

Modifié par Rhayak, 06 juillet 2012 - 10:16 .

[Jackums]

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

I can make this conclusion, because it's what we're shown in the narrative. It's what we're told by the Catalyst itself, the one making these claims!

Extraordinairy claims require extraordinairy evidence. Or, you know, any evidence. Not appeals to authority and probability.[/quote]
Have you witnessed the last x billion years prior to the events of Mass Effect?

No? Then you cannot make this conclusion. Simple.

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

Conflict =! extinction of all organic life.[/quote]
Nowhere did I state this. And nowhere have you supplied proof that its claims are false.

(And before you respond, "proof" is not your own interpretation of the content.)

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

And considering what little effort the Catalyst expends in resolve it's differences with Shepard if Shepard starts to resist cooperating with it even though it's already said it's current solution is unviable it doesn't exactly demonstrate that it's a very good negociator does it?[/quote]
Its ability to negotiate is not the matter being discussed here, and is irrelevant to what you're claiming.

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

No, they didn't. And that's why I dislike destroy. But it still reflects the overall agreement to stop the Reapers.[/quote]
Except no-one ever agreed to the things you're suggesting.

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

Refuse is not inaction, refuse is deciding to fight the Reapers on our terms, not bowing to their demands.[/quote]
No. It's inaction.

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

That is what everyone agreed to.[/quote]
Show me where they agreed to die for the sake of Shepard's pride and morals.

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

Moreover, all 4 choices are the Catalyst presenting an ultimatum. What stops the Catalyst from finding somone else to negociate with? Wasn't it built for diplomacy? Once again you're projecting the Catalyst's actions onto Shepard.[/quote]
You're blaming your own actions on the fact that you didn't like what the Catalyst presented you with?

"Mum, someone provoked me so I hit them."
"That's okay, Honey. Your actions were not your own. They forced you to hit them by making you angry."

No.

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

You're right, it's not. So why are you?[/quote]
I'm not. I'm stating the lack of validity in your claim that your own speculation is fact.

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

I have. So supply proof of the other side of the argument that shows we "cannot know".[/quote]
The fact that we cannot know is established by the very fact that we have no witnessed the past few billion years. There's your proof. You've supplied no such evidence of your claim. Merely simple speculations.

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

"Synthesis is the final evolution of all life."[/quote]
Yes, it very well may be. This is not it saying "I like Synthesis because we're better than you". I don't know how you find such sub-text in something that has no relation to its reasons for preferring Synthesis.

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

Synthesis represents the core of Reaper philosophy and their reason for being.
It is not simply what they "like". It's what they are, and what they want everyone else to be.[/quote]
Their reason for being is to prevent organic vs synthetic conflict. Therefore, yes, of course they would prefer Synthesis if it solves that very problem. Again, not seeing any inherent "evil" in their goals.

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

I have, repeatedly. You're simply claiming I'm not over and over and over while not countering anything yourself.[/quote]
You've supplied speculative conclusions born of overly simple logic and non-existent sub-text.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I tend to not go with ideas that are endorsed by giant squid deathbots.

Just a basic rule of thumb.

[The Angry One]

[quote]JackumsD wrote...

Have you witnessed the last x billion years prior to the events of Mass Effect?

No? Then you cannot make this conclusion. Simple. [/quote]

I've seen the events and history of the game.
Once again, all you have is an appeal to probability. That is not evidence.

[quote]
Nowhere did I state this. And nowhere have you supplied proof that its claims are false.

(And before you respond, "proof" is not your own interpretation of the content.)[/quote]

It's claims are based on the extinction of organic life being inevitable.

"Without us, synthetics would destroy all organic life."

Conflict is a complete non-issue. There will always be conflict. This is not a problem that requires such a unilateral solution.

[quote]
Its ability to negotiate is not the matter being discussed here, and is irrelevant to what you're claiming.[/quote]

It is relevant to it's background, it claims the cycle is the only solution.
It demonstrates that it really doesn't try very hard to find alternatives.

[quote]Except no-one ever agreed to the things you're suggesting. [/quote]

They agreed to resist the Reapers. The end.

[quote]No. It's inaction. [/quote]

If you're going to boil down to "no u", I'm not even going to bother.

[quote]Show me where they agreed to die for the sake of Shepard's pride and morals. [/quote]

They agreed to fight and die for freedom from the Reapers. Stop pretending what Shepard is saying doesn't reflect their ideals and desires too.

[quote]
You're blaming your own actions on the fact that you didn't like what the Catalyst presented you with?

"Mum, someone provoked me so I hit them."
"That's okay, Honey. Your actions were not your own. They forced you to hit them by making you angry."

No. [/quote]

I am stating that the Catalyst is the one presenting an ultimatum and demanding Shepard decide.
If you think destroy and reject decide fates, it's only because the Catalyst demands it be that way.

[quote]
I'm not. I'm stating the lack of validity in your claim that your own speculation is fact. [/quote]

You yourself admit Shepard doesn't have the right to make such decisions, so how is in not fact that it's forced?

[quote]The fact that we cannot know is established by the very fact that we have no witnessed the past few billion years. There's your proof. You've supplied no such evidence of your claim. Merely simple speculations. [/quote]

For the 500th time. An appeal to probability is not proof.

[quote]Yes, it very well may be. This is not it saying "I like Synthesis because we're better than you". I don't know how you find such sub-text in something that has no relation to its reasons for preferring Synthesis. [/quote]

Evolution doesn't work that way, there is no "final" evolution. Calling it that is little more than Reaper propaganda, because THEY think it is the best.

[quote]
Their reason for being is to prevent organic vs synthetic conflict. Therefore, yes, of course they would prefer Synthesis if it solves that very problem. Again, not seeing any inherent "evil" in their goals. [/quote]

That conflict exists entirely in their heads and does not reflect reality. They promote Reaper existence as superior and work from there.

[quote]
You've supplied speculative conclusions born of overly simple logic and non-existent sub-text.

[/quote]

Yeah. No. With your repeated appeals to probability you don't get to say that. Again, show me EVIDENCE that backs up your claims.

[alienatedflea]

explaining stuff to die-hard pro-destroyers...is pointless..."Hardest thing to open is a closed mind"...Angry doesnt want a debate but more "yes men" to confirm her confirmation bias....

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

alienatedflea wrote...

explaining stuff to die-hard pro-destroyers...is pointless..."Hardest thing to open is a closed mind"...Angry doesnt want a debate but more "yes men" to confirm her confirmation bias....

Is wanting the reapers dead really such a terrible thing?

[The Angry One]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

alienatedflea wrote...

explaining stuff to die-hard pro-destroyers...is pointless..."Hardest thing to open is a closed mind"...Angry doesnt want a debate but more "yes men" to confirm her confirmation bias....

Is wanting the reapers dead really such a terrible thing?

According to the "hug the Reapers" crowd, yes.
Oh we're so closed minded. We're so belligerent.

Meanwhile most of these people want to hang the Asari for the awful crime of not sharing their toys. Right-o.